Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Starship Update [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 348 posts

Re: Starship Update [video]

#271

Post by causi »

panick21_ wrote: post #33

The Raptor 2 engine is just an absurd. The original specs were already kind of insane. But Raptor 2 is an monster. They really pushed already significantly into a second generation design before first flight. Raptor 2 is not just a slight upgrade, its a huge upgrade. If it can actually launch multiple times a day without any refurbishment, it will simply totally break space travel as we have known it. This engine mak…

I wonder how much an orbital flight would cost if it were reduced to, say, the price of fuel plus ten percent.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#272

Post by garbagetime »

oxplot wrote: post #207
garbagetime wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're presenting a false dichotomy. Our options aren't only (a) live only on Earth, and (b) live on Earth and Mars and potentially other planets. There is, for example, (c) live in man-made structures orbiting the sun at a distance of 1AU, which is debatedly much more sensible than trying to live on Mars.

> much more sensible than trying to live on Mars It's more sensible if you plan to keep a bunch of people there with constant supply from Earth. Elon wants to build a *self-sustaining* city on Mars. There isn't any other choice of location, be it man-made, or in the solar system: - that has enough resources, atmosphere, gravity, water to allow a non-trivial population to survive without help from Earth - that is hosp…

Yes, we are talking about permanent, Earth-independent settlement in space. I didn't mean to imply that the settlements in the man-made structures would be Earth-dependent.

Atmosphere is possible in man-made structures.

Gravity can be simulated in man-made structures.

I don't believe water is particularly scarce, and it is reusable except for when it's used to create fuel.

With the Sun + plants a lot can be done.

Mars, on the other hand, has low gravity and is far away from the Sun.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#273

Post by ralfd »

fartcannon wrote: post #71
pageandrew wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, if someone is struggling to survive, that will limit their ability to become a world-changing entrepreneur. That said, the average westerner is not struggling to survive, and the average westerner does not end up founding 3 world changing companies and amassing a wealth of $200 billion. Not even the average birthright 1%er achieves that.

Its not even that complex. If there was an identical Elon that came one year after Elon, he wouldn't be able to have what Elon has. It's all luck of the draw all the way down.

> Its not even that complex. If there was an identical Elon that came one year after Elon, he wouldn't be able to have what Elon has.

The universe actually did run that experiment: Kimbal Musk is the younger brother of Elon. He too was born at the right time, the explosion of the word wide web, and made very favorable investments and is presumably filthy rich. But he doesn't have the drive to build rockets.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rachelsandler/2021/11/11/the-ot...

It is similar to Jeff Bezos brother Mark. Mark Bezos lead by every conventional measure a successful life: high managing career in advertising and at a charity non-profit, wife and 4 kids. But without his brother he wouldn't have a Wiki entry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Bezos

Re: Starship Update [video]

#274

Post by causi »

Gwypaas wrote: post #269
iliketrains wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is interesting, so could you replace the biggest and most powerful internal combustion engine in the world that weighs 2,300 tons by [whatever powers] turbopumps from a raptor engine and get the same power output? Where is the catch? Less fuel efficient? Less torque? Edit: What I meant to ask was: Can one use "whatever is powering the turbopumps and delivering the 100k HP" to power say a ship propeller, instead…

Used everywhere, more complex and has a more limited operating parameters though. In the maritime industry it has generally been military or high speed ferries using them. Essentially, if your ship can get away with a larger more mechanically simple engine it is more economical because as long as they stay on the surface you are not paying the fuel price of also lifting the engine. Commercial jets use the same mechan…

Every time I look at jet engine diagrams I get chills thinking about what it must take to make mechanical parts that function with that much precision for that many revolutions under that much heat and pressure.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#275

Post by credit_guy »

Elon Musk's greatest contribution to humankind will be to end war. In a few short years from now, the Reagan era brilliant pebbles will be economically feasible. Which means nobody will be able to keep the nuclear gun pointed at America's head anymore. At which point the US will make Russia and China (and maybe Pakistan and India) an offer they can't refuse: give up all your nukes, please. We'll denuclearize ourselves too, but a bit later.

If you don't like trillion dollar annual defense spendings, here's the cheapest way to get rid of that: make sure you're the only guy with nukes.

In which case, you will stop seeing things like Russia wanting to invade Ukraine.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#276

Post by virgilp »

jjulius wrote: post #130
fastball wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is a founder? If I incorporate a company and then bring my friend onboard a day later, is he a founder? Why or why not?

First, there's a difference between bringing someone onboard the day after incorporation and the timeline I mentioned. Second, what are you bringing your friend onboard for? Were you collaborating on this idea with them before you incorporated? Or did you bring them on because you realized you needed more money (eg, Musk)? Early investor is what he was, along with chairman, then CEO, but it's disingenuous to call him…

The legal result of the settlement is that Musk can call himself a (co)founder, and so can Straubel & Wright. Even Eberhard agreed to that.

You may personally feel he's not entitled to the title, but that's just it, a personal feeling. He's literally legally entitled to have this title. Why contradict people on the internet, and say "actually, Musk is not a founder of Tesla"? If anything, it is (right now) disingenuous to claim he is not a founder, given that maybe not all people know the full history and some may believe that he didn't (legally) earn the title.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#277

Post by sillysaurusx »

ralfd wrote: post #273
fartcannon wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not even that complex. If there was an identical Elon that came one year after Elon, he wouldn't be able to have what Elon has. It's all luck of the draw all the way down.

> Its not even that complex. If there was an identical Elon that came one year after Elon, he wouldn't be able to have what Elon has. The universe actually did run that experiment: Kimbal Musk is the younger brother of Elon. He too was born at the right time, the explosion of the word wide web, and made very favorable investments and is presumably filthy rich. But he doesn't have the drive to build rockets. https://w…

People seem to be confusing birth lottery with determination. Working hard is table stakes. But you seem to imply that anyone who isn’t poor can do it, if only they work hard enough.

I think this mindset is mistaken.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#279

Post by sillysaurusx »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #125
flyt wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, but they are. The average westerner (in the US, at least) is a $400 unexpected bill away from bankruptcy. Also, Musk was not a founder of Tesla.

The average American is not an unexpected $400 bill away from bankruptcy. This has been debunked countless times. Per the US government's own detailed statistics (BLS), the median household has $1000 per month leftover after all ordinary expenses. That's literally money available to piss away on whatever after all the basic lifestyle expenses, so it will definitely cover a $400 expense. Americans have a lot of discre…

Am American. Did go bankrupt. Bill was $4k. Hospital trip.

You’re quoting the fed and seem a little out of touch with the realities that most Americans face on a day to day basis. I didn’t grow up in a bad part of town. I’m a successful programmer.

Re: Starship Update [video]

#280

Post by sillysaurusx »

virgilp wrote: post #276
jjulius wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, there's a difference between bringing someone onboard the day after incorporation and the timeline I mentioned. Second, what are you bringing your friend onboard for? Were you collaborating on this idea with them before you incorporated? Or did you bring them on because you realized you needed more money (eg, Musk)? Early investor is what he was, along with chairman, then CEO, but it's disingenuous to call him…

The legal result of the settlement is that Musk can call himself a (co)founder, and so can Straubel & Wright. Even Eberhard agreed to that. You may personally feel he's not entitled to the title, but that's just it, a personal feeling. He's literally legally entitled to have this title. Why contradict people on the internet, and say "actually, Musk is not a founder of Tesla"? If anything, it is (right now) disingenuo…

Legal isn’t some gotcha. He is entitled. But he wasn’t a founder of Tesla.

I think pg would agree. He’s made the distinction in the past, and he knows more about startups than pretty much anybody. You can’t onboard a founder; it’s not a personal feeling, and some legal ruling doesn’t change that.

Post reply on HN